Aikido vs AikiJutsu

Posted by: Lokkan-Do

Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 07/05/04 10:11 AM

I already asked Sensei Lou this question by e-mail.

I am looking for further opinion.


From what I understand:
Aikido is a spiritual art that uses locks to restrain an attacker.

Aikijutsu is a combat art that uses locks to destroy an attackers limb.

My question is which of the two arts can be trained more alive?

My definition of alive is training with resisting opponent who is doing everthing in his power to escape from your lock and loose you grip. (Constantly resisting with all his might. As in wrestling or Judo.)


Warm regards, Lok

[This message has been edited by Lokkan-Do (edited 07-05-2004).]
Posted by: Joe Jutsu

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 07/05/04 01:28 PM

I would hypothesize, without ever having stepped inside an aikijujutsu dojo, that one ought to be able to train aikido more alive, because the takedowns are all accomplished without damage to the limbs or joints. But to reach this level of practice, both partners need to have a certain level of competency, where nage (the thrower) can be trusted to not destroy uke (the attackers) limbs or joints when things don't go quite as planned and uke can keep himself safe as the intensity level increases.

I'd be curious to hear other responses.

Joe
Posted by: Lokkan-Do

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 07/05/04 04:12 PM

Wow this thread is slow.

Thanks Joe Jutsu, that was the hypothetical answer I was hypothetically expecting to hear.

Lol


Warm regards, Lok
Posted by: senseilou

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 07/06/04 01:57 AM

I have shared my thoughts on this already, but I feel the cruxt of the matter is intent. I have seen soft Aiki-Jujutsu and hard Aikido, but it has to do with how the people train in each art, and the intent they use. Capture and compliance or capture and destroy, once again its how you want to train, not so much the difference in the styles or arts.
Posted by: dud

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 12/19/05 03:54 PM

Tomiki Aikido is the answer.
Dud
Quote:

I would hypothesize, without ever having stepped inside an aikijujutsu dojo, that one ought to be able to train aikido more alive, because the takedowns are all accomplished without damage to the limbs or joints. But to reach this level of practice, both partners need to have a certain level of competency, where nage (the thrower) can be trusted to not destroy uke (the attackers) limbs or joints when things don't go quite as planned and uke can keep himself safe as the intensity level increases.

I'd be curious to hear other responses.

Joe


Posted by: azjudoaikijitsu

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 01/19/06 10:45 AM

I would be biased but I'd say Aikijutsu. It's moves are less circular, tighter and faster, and they practice more randori with resitance. But tomiki Aikido is an option too
Posted by: Ko_Yama

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 03/01/06 08:19 AM

As a student of both Tomiki Aikido and Goshin Jitsu I think it is the teacher not the art, Tomiki can be hard as hell and also soft, its the singer not the song!
Posted by: AkhilleusWeeps

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 03/01/06 06:35 PM

Quote:

I would be biased but I'd say Aikijutsu. It's moves are less circular, tighter and faster, and they practice more randori with resitance. But tomiki Aikido is an option too




From my understanding any Aikidoka with experience can move about with uke in really small circles due to skill and comprehension of body movements. About practising with resistance......some of my fellow aikidoka feel as if they should be practising judo, honestly though, it's enjoyable and one learns what movements work for the individual.

I'm basically saying the same thing Lou is....it all really depends on x and y. (those are variables ^_^)
Posted by: wristtwister

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 03/02/06 12:31 PM

Sorry guys, but technique is technique... how well you do it is what makes the difference. I do both jujitsu and aikido at a high level, and it's all about application not which book the technique came from.

I can do either jujitsu in a big room or aikido in a small room, because you have to adjust the technique to the situation in either case, so what you guys are arguing over is which flea owns the dog.

If you're training in aikijujitsu and like it... continue to practice. If you're doing aikido and like it, continue to practice. If you don't like anything, find something you like and practice that. It's not very hard to understand, but not necessarily easily understood if you're just starting out.

My teachers taught me things I didn't understand for 10 years, but suddenly came in to focus when I was training. If I'd stopped training and "done something else", I'd never have been privy to what I know.

If you want to know how to do a technique, ask a blue belt. If you want to know how a technique works, ask a brown belt. If you want to know how a technique is applied, ask a black belt. If you want to know what you're doing wrong, ask a white belt. They have all the answers.

If you are having that much trouble deciding what you want to study, you need to have a talk with your teacher and let them decide if you're worth wasting their time teaching. As a hachidan, nothing is more irritating than spending lots of time grooming someone for promotions and to help carry on an art, just to have them bail out and start doing "something else" that happens to be passing through town.

"Everybody can join the circus, but not everybody is an acrobat". If you want to be the acrobat, you have to practice.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 03/02/06 05:09 PM

Generally good advice to take heed... practice, more practice and keep sticking with it, even if it may not be obvious immediately.

Technique is appplication of principles, rooted in the fundamentals. Understand the principles, work on the fundamentals, practice the technique.

But I think SenseiLou (who is unfortunately no longer with us) hit the nail on the head. It is the intent (specifically martial intent - which may also mean different things to different people) with which you train that is the real difference. (Of course, the first part about practised technique applies as well).

Kokoro - the spirit in which you train is extremely important. On the mat, you could be simply "going thru the motions" slowly, but if your spiritual intent is present, who's to say that you're not practising in an "alive" manner. Simply because you're not out to hurt your partner in a training session?

SenseiLou was often fond of the phrase "how you train is how you fight". Of course, I don't think he meant "fight" as in "fight", since (traditional) martial arts are not meant for "fighting", but for "honest to God" self-defense. But since that means different things to different people, I'll leave that up to your interpretation.

BTW, this is SO, SO true...
Quote:


If you want to know how to do a technique, ask a blue belt. If you want to know how a technique works, ask a brown belt. If you want to know how a technique is applied, ask a black belt. If you want to know what you're doing wrong, ask a white belt. They have all the answers.




Thanks!
Posted by: pickenjg

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 03/10/06 12:15 PM

wow, this has been 2 years ago that the question was asked of which art you can go live with. I'm thinking that you can go live with either art however the end result remains the same. Joints will be torn bones may break and no doubt the uke will get hurt. Either art will damage uke if they resist with all their might, that is if tori knows what they are doing.

I like the find something and stick with it reply though. I'm guilty of starting something and then moving on to something else, but I never forgot my roots in Aikido, therefore I came back and put what I've learned from the other arts to help with my Aikido skills.

This is an excellent post.
Posted by: Walter Wong

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 03/23/06 12:41 PM

Please remember that Morihei Ueshiba was essentially an Aikijujutsu practitioner that was modifying what he practiced as Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu under Takeda Sokaku into Aikido.
Posted by: wristtwister

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 03/24/06 09:03 PM

I find it interesting that everyone that never studied with Ueshiba Sensei has a different story about what he did as Aikido. It makes me wonder where they got their information.

One of my good friends was Fumio Toyoda, who was one of Tohei's deshis, and my training partner is a student of Sogunuma Sensei, who was one of Ueshiba's ukes and travelled with him. Both of them taught me aikido, but from two completely different perspectives in many respects when teaching the same technique. My partner, however, tells me "I'm imitating Sogunuma Sensei imitating Ueshiba Sensei" quite often during our training.

Before his death, Toyoda Sensei and I did a lot of training together after his seminars on "jujitsu techniques", and he never referred to them as "aiki-jujitsu, or aiki" techniques. He called them "the old style" of technique, which was excellent jujitsu and aikido, but more brutal in its applications. Not much of it was found in the "formal training" in our Aikido seminars, but clearly he knew what the basis of the art was, and had a clear and distinct separation of it from Aikido.

Coming from a jujitsu, judo, and Okinawan karate background, I see a lot of dissimilar approaches to techniques in Aikido, depending on how actually "close" to the sources of Aikido arts the instructors are. While we have a general understanding of what OSensi was trying to get across, I'm not sure that it ever got transmitted to the general population of practitioners. We are all simply "imitating our instruction", and the depth of understanding varies with where we get our information.

While your statement is historically correct regarding where OSensei got his training in jujitsu, there were a lot of other influences that went into the development of Aikido. Exactly what they were and how much each one of them influenced him in developing his art is pure conjecture.

I'd rather tell someone "I'm imitating my teachers imitating their teachers" than to make definitive statements about exactly where any of these arts come from. While I'm a student of martial arts history, I don't think any of us has all the answers or the historical perspective to look inside these old master's minds.

I'm just glad they did what they did, and left us such terrific arts to study and play while learning to defend ourselves. I think the definitive answer is that there is no definitive answer to most of the questions regarding development. The arts are what they are, and what was inside Ueshiba's or Funakoshi's (or any other master's) heads is entirely conjecture, even if you read their writings.

Posted by: Walter Wong

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 03/28/06 02:46 PM

Thank you wrist for your insight. I'll admit it was some assumption on my part with the fact that he trained Daito Ryu under Takeda Sokaku. I know he trained in other arts as well, but thought Aikido was more heavily influenced from Daito Ryu. My apologies.
Posted by: wristtwister

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 03/28/06 09:16 PM

Walter, I sometimes am amazed myself when I see the list of people I've been fortunate enough to train with over the years. I've been lucky enough to be in the right place and at the right time to meet, train with, and make friends with many world reknown martial arts masters. 43 years is a long time to do anything, and I've been around American martial arts since 1962. I started training in judo and Isshin Ryu karate at a YMCA class, and travelled all over North and South Carolina for many years teaching. I started studying jujitsu on my own from books, and then started looking for teachers who "might know some jujitsu". Guys like Toyoda are out there, but you have to make friends with them to find out that they know some things like "the old style of technique".

I've learned to talk to master-level teachers and find out what they're interested in, and what their backgrounds are. A lot of jujitsu teachers started teaching Aikido after it surged into prominence and the public started asking for instruction, so the backgrounds are hidden in the "fluff" to get the students in the door.

Personally, I don't see a difference in Aikido or Aiki-jujitsu other than the preferences of the teachers and what they focus their teachings on. I've been told a thousand times "we don't block in Aikido", but if you don't block, you get hit... now "redirecting" the attacker's attack is not blocking? I don't think so... it's one of those "you say tomato, I say to-mah-to" things.

To me, technique is technique, and the same principles apply if I'm dodging a karate punch, a jujitsu punch, or an aikido punch. How I respond, is dependent on how sincere I think the attack is...

You have to love what you're doing if you're sincere in martial arts training, and I once trained for nearly a year with a broken hip (didn't know it was cracked). What that made me realize is that as long as I do my ukemi correctly, I can protect myself against most Aikido throwing techniques. Some of the other "stuff" is a little more difficult, but I couldn't split the hairs between aikido and aiki-jujitsu if I was using it in a life and death situation. I'd use "technique"... if it came out of a cracker jack box.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/02/07 09:58 PM

which art would work better in a real fight ?
Posted by: aikiuke

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/03/07 01:39 AM

In case you forgot to read the thread before you posted, Wristtwister said:
Quote:

Sorry guys, but technique is technique... how well you do it is what makes the difference. I do both jujitsu and aikido at a high level, and it's all about application not which book the technique came from.

I can do either jujitsu in a big room or aikido in a small room, because you have to adjust the technique to the situation in either case, so what you guys are arguing over is which flea owns the dog.





In other words, It's not the art, it's the artist and the quality of the artist's training that really matter.
No art is better than an other by its self. Therefore [just FYI] we really don't like to get in these "what art is better" conversations on this forum.
Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/04/07 03:17 AM

"It's the artist, not the art" is THE biggest cliche in martial arts--and untrue on top of it. This statement does not come from an honest assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of different arts. It is a political statement designed to keep peace within the MA community.

News flash: the art matters--A LOT. If I want to learn practical self-defense, I am going to look into boxing, judo, mma or some other style where they regularly train against actively resisitng opponents under realistic conditions. I am not going to take up WTF taekwondo--it is a martial sport, not self-defense. I am not going to take up aikido--no active resistance.

Please, please--most of us on this board have enough experience to KNOW not all arts are created equal. Let's stop lying to ourselves.
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/04/07 04:49 AM

Quote:

not all arts are created equal


There may be a smidgen of truth to that... but it's only a tiny smidgen. All martial arts are based on the same fundamental principles of combat. Each art tends to specialize in specific ways which the Founders believed to be strategically and/or tactically superior. Therefore, the training method will reflect the philosophy that best addresses those strategic and tactical advantages.

In addition, the training regime that a casual onlooker might observe may not be representative of the art's true meaning and function. Sometimes, things are hidden in plain sight, or just plain hidden - a necessary modification to retain a strategic/tactical superiority or advantage. After all, one never knows if one's enemies have infiltrated one's school to "steal" techniques.

Whilst I agree that each art has its relative strengths and weaknesses (but not in the way you're implying), I think that political statements, cliches, and surface level assessments of an art based on a casual onlooker's perspective is a narrow-minded perception.

It is the student of the art first and foremost, followed by the teacher. If you are a lousy student, it doesn't matter if you have the greatest teacher in the world, of the greatest, most powerful martial art in the world - you will still suck.

What art, is largely irrelevant. One can even learn basic combat principles from sport TKD. If after 15 years, you weren't smart enough to work out the SD aspects inherent in sport TKD (and indeed in all martial arts), then it's hardly the fault of the teacher or the art is it?
Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/04/07 01:38 PM

I certainly agree that a lousy student will fail to progress in any art. That seems so self-evident it hardly merits stating.

However, I have to take issue with your statement that what art one practices is "largely irrelevant." I wish it were true. But it isn't.

I have studied TKD for 25 years. For about 15 years I was certain TKD would meet any and all of my self-defense needs. I used the "it's the artist, not the art" argument a billion times myself. But somehwere in the back of my mind, I had doubts. When my brother starting boxing, I could not help notice the superiority of his footwork and hand techniques. But I could not admit the gaps in my art.

Finally, I began stdying judo ten years ago and I was able to admit what, at some primal screasm level, I had known for years: TKD is an incomplete art. Strong kicking skills are fine to have; however, they are nowhere near as basic to self defense as good boxing and wrestling skills. From a self-defense perspective, TKD is simply lacking.

Do I hate TKD? Not at all. But as much as I love it, I now see it more as an artistic pursuit.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/04/07 01:43 PM

Quote:

News flash: the school matters--A LOT. If I want to learn practical self-defense, I am going to look into schools where they regularly train against actively resisitng opponents under realistic conditions.




Fixed that for you, bro.
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/04/07 06:03 PM

Quote:

TKD is an incomplete art.


Is it? Or did you just not learn the complete art? Or did you have a teacher that did not learn the complete art either?

Old style TKD (before it was reduced to a sport) isn't the same thing as its modern incarnation. For starters, the number of hand movements in the old hyungs far outnumbered kicks. And the kicks were never above waist level. I have an 1960 Edition of Choi Hong Hi's Complete TKD... in it there are seated (kneeling) techniques, grappling, weapon techs, SD techniques and pressure points... including the older Shotokan kata.

It's not the art's fault... it's what ignorance did to the art.

Still, I learned some important basic stuff like footwork, "block", punch/strike, and kick in TKD... but I left too because I saw the art for more than what it was. I just wasn't getting it from my instructor.
Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/04/07 07:13 PM

What I studied WAS "old style" ITF TKD--under han Cha Kyo, one of the art's founders. We had no torunament focus whatsoever. And it was still incomplete.
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/04/07 08:14 PM

Despite that, I still don't think the art itself is incomplete. Teachers can only convey a fraction of their knowledge. Hopefully, this will contain the basic foundational elements on which the art is based - philosophically, strategically and tactically.

I still believe it is up to the person to make it their art, and to attain the highest level that the art can offer. That's why it's called "art". Skill and mastery of one's craft is art.

I can see why you think it is incomplete from some perspective, but I would say that it is your knowledge that is incomplete. And yes, perhaps sometimes you need to go outside your art, and experience a different training paradigm in order to see what you are missing in your training. Rather than what is missing from the art.

I remember asking my teacher once, about something that was seemingly "missing" from our practice, and his response was "well, obviously... one must adapt to suit the situation"....

Still, it didn't take me 25 years to work out I needed to move on
Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/05/07 11:21 AM

Didn't take me 25 years either, thank goodness.

Let me define what I mean by "incomplete." No art can possibly include techniques or tactics to cover every concievable situation. Instead, different MA emphasize different aspects of self-defense. Boxing focuses on hand techniques, taekwondo on kicking, judo on wrestling, etc. Yes, they may make some attempt to cover everything, every art has a clear emphasis.

The problem I ultimately had with TKD was that it emphasized kicking--one of the least important aspects of self defense. Of course good kicking skills are great to have. But it is far more important to know how to box or wrestle.
Posted by: cxt

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/05/07 03:30 PM


File

"its far more important to know how to box or wrestle"

In your opinion.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/05/07 04:24 PM

I believe in aplication there are boh the same only priciple are they separate. Some Aikido purest say they don't use strikes, whereas Aiki-Jujitsu readily apply them boh arts in application have no limits and are very old world Jujitsu like in brutallity and finality.

No doubt boxing and wrestling would help but these are control and knock down skills. The other two in application are vicious fighting arts.
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/05/07 06:50 PM

Quote:

... No art can possibly include techniques or tactics to cover every concievable situation. Instead, different MA emphasize different aspects of self-defense.... they may make some attempt to cover everything, every art has a clear emphasis.


I think you've hit the nail on the head... every art has a clear emphasis on an area of specialization that supposedly gives them a strategic and/or tactical advantage.

Quote:

The problem I ultimately had with TKD was that it emphasized kicking--one of the least important aspects of self defense. Of course good kicking skills are great to have. But it is far more important to know how to box or wrestle.


And the sole advantage of kicking is... range. The entire philosophy of TKD is based on the idea that kicking techniques give you a longer reach, and the ability to maintain combat distance. I still think its a case of not knowing what the art is designed for and the entire rationale of the art. That, and whether the art is suited for your body type and personal philosophy.
Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/05/07 07:41 PM

Eyrie,

I believe we are getting close to the same page here.

Taekwondo's emphasis on kicking is indeed premised on the idea of staying out of your opponent's range--and of course I know that .

However, there are, in my opinion, several problems with that strategy:

1) Many, if not most, fights erupt at close to @#$% close range to begin with.

2) Unless you strike with near-perfect timing and precision, your opponent will almost certainly close the range between you. While we all strive for perfection, we should not bet our lives on achieving it.

3) Wearing ordinary pants limits the legs' range of motion, limiting TKD fighters' use of their strongest weapon. I am actually surprised at how rarely this comes up on the board .

Just for the record, I have met some people for whom these problems matter not one bit. Some TKD fighters are just so wicked fast and accurate they would never need to do anything but kick. However, they are few and far between, and I ain't one of 'em .
Posted by: eyrie

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/05/07 07:56 PM

I feel ya bro...

And I agree with everything you've said... however, every strategy or tactic can be countered - provided one is able to seize the opportunity at the right time.

I can't remember if it was Rick Clark or Pat McCarthy who once told me - it's all about mastering your space and controlling the other person's space.

BTW, I've seen George Chung kick in jeans.... OK, granted his jeans had a diamond-shaped crutch piece to facilitate his signature high kick.... still impressive nonetheless.
Posted by: wristtwister

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/05/07 09:30 PM

Fileboy,
my TKD teacher was Billy Hong, who was All-Asian TKD champion in 1966 & 67. The first day he showed up at our dojo, he walked in (in his street clothes), kicked off his shoes, and then walked over to the wall. He was standing about a foot from the wall, and brought his leg out and up over his head and put his foot flat against the wall. That got our attention...

He too had that vertical kick, and could make it happen in very little space... but his blocking skills sucked. I had been doing Okinawan karate and Shotokan, and had a combination that began as a front snap kick, and then changed to a roundhouse to the head. Billy never could block it, and would always shout at me "you use illegal kick" (x 3). What made it "illegal" was the fact he couldn't block it.

I wouldn't short-sell TKD at all, because one of the championships Billy won was when he broke the jaw of the competitor through one of those old "wire masks" that we used for full contact fighting. He was like trying to fight a weedeater... and there were feet flying at your face wherever you were... so, as you say, it's the "singer", not the song. He was very, very good... but he wasn't invincible. I used to pi$$ him off greatly by using that snap-roundhouse combination simply because I knew he couldn't block it. I didn't have nearly the skill at that time that he had, but I had his number with that one technique... and could get him stomping mad by using it.

He was a good teacher, and TKD in this area is mostly because of his efforts and from his student base. He was killed on flight 007 that was shot down by the North Koreans when he was returning home from Seoul. I enjoyed training with him, but we never really got along together.

I was a Shodan and he was 4th degree at the time, and while we didn't really make friends, we both respected what each other could do. Walking out of the dojo one night, one of his students (brown belt) asked "what makes him a black belt?"... "he doesn't know our katas," etc. and he threw a kick at my head from beside me. I blocked it about 2" from my head, and Billy stepped between us and said... "that's the difference"... and proceeded to take one of his brown belt ranks away from him.

I asked him later why he did that, and he said "I don't need stupid blackbelts coming out of my school. He was a real piece of work, and had been doing TKD for 14 years when I met him... he was 22 or 23 years old, and had been an orphan in Seoul, and all he did was go to school and then do TKD.

He was one of those "wicked fast" guys you're talking about...

Posted by: cxt

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/06/07 04:31 PM

Wrist

I've read about Mr. Hong.

If memory serves another student of his (Jeri????) had a written a series of stories about Mr. Hongs dojang.

Some good stories and some really good training lessons.

Called it her "TKD Book"....again, if memory serves.

A VERY good read.
Posted by: wristtwister

Re: Aikido vs AikiJutsu - 11/08/07 09:17 PM

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this into a TKD discussion. I was just meaning to comment that whatever you train in is probably a good self defense art if you do it well.

Apologies for the hijack...